Recently the board software has been updated and there are some known bugs/failures:
- Avatars are currently not being displayed✔ FIXED
- Tapatalk connection is currently broken✔ FIXED
- Avatars cannot be uploaded✔ FIXED

I think Millar's right that it's ill advised, but Kimmage has crossed the UCI's Rubicon and they'll all have their day in court to make the lawyers richer.

It's more than "ill advised." Millar's full quote is revealing:

“And let’s face it, Paul’s been the strongest voice in anti-doping in the sport for twenty years and nobody would listen to him. Now everybody is talking about it and everybody’s with him, and now he’s the one guy getting persecuted by the UCI. That’s a bit of a strange thing.”

_________________"I can't understand why people are frightened by new ideas. I'm frightened of old ones." -- John Cage

swinter said " For one thing, Kimmage was not by any means a systematic doper (it's been a while since I read the book, but wasn't it only a couple of times?), he never lied about it"

And you believe him? There is no way you could know that. Ex riders ,riders ,UCI ,USADA are making a big fu$k up of cycling's already doped inflicted reputation to get some kind of moral high ground in a sport where doping is the name of the game. They have all played there role in this hypocritical fiasco of an enquiry/witch-hunt in order to keep there pockets happy and the reputations intact. There all a bunch of tw%ts .

swinter said " For one thing, Kimmage was not by any means a systematic doper (it's been a while since I read the book, but wasn't it only a couple of times?), he never lied about it"

And you believe him? There is no way you could know that.

I read the book. He described in some detail his emotional and psychological reaction to the doping going on around him. It was a pretty credible account.

One of the things I look for in witness testimony (and I practiced law for nearly a decade before my nearly three decades of law teaching) is a psychologically realistic account of actions and motivations. So, yes, l believe him in the same way I believe Frankie and Betsy's testimony because it is clear from everyone's account of their relationship (not just their own) that Betsy was truly worried and upset about the health risks of Frankie's doing PEDS. Juliet Macur's NY Times expose http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/sports/othersports/12cycling.html?pagewanted=all did a good job on this point. (Note, too, Lance's lawyer's comment that Betsy's motivations were "unexplainable.") Tyler's book provides additional confirmation.

One of the strength's of Tyler's book, BTW, is that -- even more than Vaughter's NY Times piece -- it provides an account of the rationalizations he indulged it to justify doping (and that, according to him, Lance indulged in) which rings true in terms of my observations of and experience with people over the last 60 years.

_________________"I can't understand why people are frightened by new ideas. I'm frightened of old ones." -- John Cage

Swinter - understand where you're coming from. We can all argue about what we consider the likely truth to be regarding what Kimmage took.

Not sure how the Swiss legal system works, but before a court in a Common Law system, where would Kimmage stand? Would he have to adduce evidence to support his allegation of corruption? Or, could the general allegations flowing from different quarters strengthen his case? My personal perspective is that the UCI is a corrupt organisation, but Kimmage should know better given that his mentor David Walsh and the Sunday Times (ST) got into such problems when Walsh said his piece in the ST regarding Lance.

I had an exchange of mails with Alan English (Walsh's boss on the ST) when all this blew up with Walsh and Lance and said that it was foolhardy to make such allegations without concrete proof and that I thought they would be found against in court. I thought that Lance was guilty, but that's not the same as proving it. Of course, the evidence is proven - what we all knew - with USADA's investigation, which in turn supports Walsh's allegations.

My view of Verbruggen is that he's essentially an odious politician; McQuaid a bungling fool (although he may also be putting on a good act).

Of course, the evidence is proven - what we all knew - with USADA's investigation, which in turn supports Walsh's allegations.

Hold on there cowboy. Have you seen the results of USADA's investigation? Has anyone outside of USADA seen it? Perhaps we should hold off on final judgment. Do I think Armstrong is a no good, lying doper? Why yes I do, but I haven't seen the proof yet. As for whether Verbruggen was involved in a UCI cover up? Let's just say that it seems quite plausible. And I'm not sure that McQuaid is Mr. Innocent himself.

Not sure how the Swiss legal system works, but before a court in a Common Law system, where would Kimmage stand? Would he have to adduce evidence to support his allegation of corruption? Or, could the general allegations flowing from different quarters strengthen his case?

As I noted in an addendum to my original post, this would be a slam dunk for Kimmage in the US courts. The libel laws in the UK are very different -- much more favorable to plaintiffs. (Which is why the Walsh suit was settled, if I remember correctly.) The big difference is that they don't have a First Amendment; in the US, the Supreme Court (in a case argued by one of my favorite professors) has limited the scope of libel laws to protect free speech on topics of public and political concern.

Note that when Lance to Landis (the successor book to LA Confidential, covering much the same ground) was published in the US, Lance did not take Walsh to court.

P.S. -- Also note that as early as 2006, Andreu and another witness who was still riding professionally and wanted to remain anonymous had already told the New York Times that there was doping on Postal and directly implicated Lance. (See the earlier link.)

_________________"I can't understand why people are frightened by new ideas. I'm frightened of old ones." -- John Cage

The standard in Canada is high as well for libel/defamation. Damages are normally quite limited. Verbruggen and McQuaid would likely find that their reputations were of such limited standing that any actual libel would be unlikely to diminish them further.

_________________

wheelsONfire wrote:

When we ride disc brakes the whole deal of braking is just like a leaving a fart. It happens and then it's over. Nothing planned and nothing to get nervous for.

Swinter - understand where you're coming from. We can all argue about what we consider the likely truth to be regarding what Kimmage took.

Not sure how the Swiss legal system works, but before a court in a Common Law system, where would Kimmage stand? Would he have to adduce evidence to support his allegation of corruption? Or, could the general allegations flowing from different quarters strengthen his case? My personal perspective is that the UCI is a corrupt organisation, but Kimmage should know better given that his mentor David Walsh and the Sunday Times (ST) got into such problems when Walsh said his piece in the ST regarding Lance.

I had an exchange of mails with Alan English (Walsh's boss on the ST) when all this blew up with Walsh and Lance and said that it was foolhardy to make such allegations without concrete proof and that I thought they would be found against in court. I thought that Lance was guilty, but that's not the same as proving it. Of course, the evidence is proven - what we all knew - with USADA's investigation, which in turn supports Walsh's allegations.

My view of Verbruggen is that he's essentially an odious politician; McQuaid a bungling fool (although he may also be putting on a good act).

Again, just so I've got everything straight. You've asked for evidence but are unable to say how much evidence there needs to be in order to make you happy. You think the UCI are corrupt but don't think anyone should say anything about it unless they're able to prove that unicorns exist. Am I getting this right?

_________________- Zipp rims will break if you look at them too hard- R-Sys wheels will spontaneously explode- The ZG crankset will never, ever exist- Everyone needs Lightweights, even if they're fat and old- Parts actually made of metal are SO 10 years ago

It's not whether I'm happy or not. I have no great liking for the three actors involved in this action. So, I couldn't give a shit how it turns out. I'm looking at it from what the legal burden of proof would be, hence my questions to Swinter.It's for the courts to decide how much evidence is required, not what you or I think. Presumably, when you make an allegation you have to explain why you arrived at that view. Otherwise, why have libel laws? I'm quite happy for people to point out corruption, but just making a statement that someone or some organisation is corrupt and then be exempt from defending themselves is wrong. So, yes Kimmage has every right to make the statement, but equally HV and PMc have every right to defend themselves.What the level of proof is depends from country to country (Swinter's post). So, it wouldn't likely wash in the US, but would likely be more sympathetic for the UCI in the UK. Swiss, I don't know.So, your final sentence: Seems to me you've already made up your mind.

Swinter, that is a super reply and I understand your point and appreciate you experience in this area. Most of these guys have been doping for years and they then tend to believe there lies and they will look you in the eye and do all the things i.e. body language etc etc of someone telling the truth. It is only when they get caught that they will admit to doping or in some cases still deny it . Kimmage IMO has only told us what he wants us to know. I would not believe in any of them . It's almost like these guys are getting a new career out of there doping past.

I did a little preliminary research. Swiss defamation law seems closer to the US than the UK. Under Swiss law, journalists have a defense of "good faith belief in the truth of the statements." Of course, the meaning of that defense depends upon how the court interprets both the law ("good faith") and the facts (i.e., was there enough that a reasonable reporter would have believed in the truth of the statement). Kimmage should have a reasonably good chance (though not a slam dunk), especially since additional information has come out since.

Of course, if Kimmage was not aware of the additional information at the time a court could reasonably say that it doesn't affect his subjective good faith. On the other hand, Kimmage would presumedly argue that he had sufficient reason at the time to think Landis was credible and, then, it would be a little uncomfortable (to say the least) for a court to hold someone liable when the reporter believed his source was credible and subsequent information in fact confirmed that judgment.

_________________"I can't understand why people are frightened by new ideas. I'm frightened of old ones." -- John Cage

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum